Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 503 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTLevy of interest u/s 234B - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of Manasarovar Commercial (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2023 (4) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT) the first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and is not pressed by Appellant. Deduction u/s 80-O - brandishing newspaper cuttings as proof to show 'information concerning commercial knowledge and experience'- Appellant was obliged to provide information to Arianespace regarding current regulations and market conditions in India - Deduction denied as information provided by Appellant pursuant to the said agreement comprised only of newspaper cuttings freely available and hence, cannot be treated as 'information concerning commercial knowledge and experience', there were no written reports of any analysis, Appellant had no experience in Satellite business and there was nothing to indicate that the information was utilized outside India - HELD THAT:- It is clear that approval was accorded by the CCIT on the basis of specific statements made by Appellant that information to be shared pursuant to the agreement was that collected and collated from User Departments and analysis and assessments were to be done during quarterly meetings. Newspaper cuttings are not precluded from being shared as information but by themselves they do not constitute any commercial expertise. AO is well within his rights to request Appellant to furnish proof of sharing the information with Arianespace for which approval was granted by the CCIT. From the replies of Appellant to the AO, it is quite clear that Appellant has not provided material to Arianespace as represented by it before the CCIT while seeking approval as newspaper cuttings are not information collected or collated from User Departments. The application form for approval specifies providing commercial assistance to Arianespace as contemplated under Section 80-O of the Act based on which approval was procured. Thus, we have no hesitation in accepting the decision of the AO in rejecting this claim of Appellant. AO is well within his jurisdiction to verify whether the information shared is attributable to the information or service contemplated by the provision. The AO is in fact required to make such an enquiry and for that purpose the assessee is required to place on record requisite material supporting its claim for deduction and on the basis of which approval was procured from the CCIT. The present case displays an obvious attempt on the part of Appellant in creating an illusion of acting in aid of the agreement, on the basis of the approval granted by the CCIT, while at the same time refusing to produce any evidence in respect of which relief is being sought. Merely brandishing newspaper cuttings does not amount to proof of sharing commercial expertise with its French counterpart as mandated by Section 80-O of the Act. Decided against assessee.
|